How local journalists fight government secrecy — every day

These men aren’t — and wouldn’t claim to be — household names. They’re not powerful First Amendment lawyers. They haven’t been parties in precedent-shattering U.S. Supreme Court cases. They’re not high-profile constitutional scholars.

And yet, what they’re doing to advance and protect the freedom of the press is as important as any Supreme Court precedent. They’re journalists, manning the front lines in battles against government secrecy and fighting the daily fight to provide their readers the most thorough and accurate information possible.

Mayfield, Lough and Giuliani, of course, aren’t alone. Every day, publishers, editors and reporters across the country push back veils of secrecy, ask hard questions and refuse to take “no” for an answer. Mayfield, Lough and Giuliani wouldn’t claim to be the nation’s best journalists, but they exemplify the best journalism has to offer.

Admittedly, I’m biased. Mayfield is a good friend and the publisher of Sauk Valley Media, one of my favorite clients. SVM publishes the Dixon Telegraph and the Sterling Daily Gazette in rural northwest Illinois. Lough serves as the papers’ executive editor, and Giuliani aggressively covers several beats. My bias, however, doesn’t change the fact that these men have teamed to increase the accountability and enhance the openness of the area’s local government bodies.

In just the last three weeks, for example, SVM has obtained opinions from the Illinois attorney general that the Lee County Board violated Illinois’ open-meetings law and that the Rock Falls Township High School District board of education failed to comply with the state’s freedom of information act.

At first blush, of course, these issues hardly seem like blockbusters. What makes them significant, however, is that they arise every day in every corner of the country, threatening to deny important information to the public and challenging the news media to respond.

The issue with the Lee County Board arose when the board on April 19 voted on two items — to reduce its size from 28 members to 24 and to fill an animal-control vacancy — even though the items did not appear on the board’s agenda.

Giuliani, who covers the board, believed the actions violated the state’s Open Meetings Act and said so, ultimately complaining to the Illinois Attorney General about the alleged violation. The county maintained its actions were legal, arguing that the vote on the size reduction was sufficiently publicized because the issue was referenced in minutes of a board committee and that the vote on the animal-control position did not require notice because the person hired was a “minimal income employee.”

The attorney general disagreed.

“[T]he public body cannot take action or make any decision with regard to items or topics not on the agenda of the regular meeting,” Assistant Attorney General Amanda Lundeen wrote. “[T]he Board is required to include in its meeting agendas public notice of any matter on which it intends to take final action, including the hiring of any employee which requires Board action.”

The issue with the school board arose in February, when a special-education teacher and wrestling coach accused of sending inappropriate text messages to a female student resigned from both positions near the end of a five-hour closed session. Shortly after the closed session ended, the board approved a resignation agreement negotiated during the closed meeting.

The board, however, refused to give Giuliani a copy of the agreement or related records, claiming it was permitted to keep the documents secret because they related to the adjudication of an employee disciplinary matter for which there had been no final outcome.

As permitted under a new Illinois law, SVM appealed the denial to the public access counselor in the attorney general’s office. (This new process works so well that media lawyers usually are not involved in the appeals, and I was not involved in this one.) Not surprisingly, the attorney general concluded that this exemption did not apply, as the employee’s resignation constituted a final outcome.

The district then asserted a second ground for keeping the documents confidential — that they would inappropriately disclose the student’s identity. Noting that SVM already had agreed that the district could and should redact the student’s name from the records, the attorney general also rejected this argument.

“[M]uch of the information in these documents relates solely to the district’s investigation and to [the teacher’s] reactions and reveals nothing about the student,” Assistant Attorney General Sarah Kaplan wrote. “The remaining information is not highly personal, and disclosure would not be objectionable to a reasonable person.”

The only documents the district could withhold, Kaplan said, were preliminary drafts or recommendations in which opinions were expressed or actions formulated.

Predictably, the district latched onto this exemption and is refusing to release any documents until the Attorney General determines which few records, if any, can be withheld under it.

No matter which records finally are released, it’s clear that SVM will continue holding local officials to the standards the open-meetings and open-records laws require. Giuliani knows how the laws work and how to enforce them. Lough devotes many of his weekend columns to raising awareness about these issues and mentors Giuliani and SVM’s other young reporters. And Mayfield continually provides the support, through resources and the papers’ editorial pages, that Giuliani and Lough need to maintain their fight.

As a result of these efforts, readers throughout northwest Illinois indisputably are better informed. Armed with this information, they join citizens across the country who — thanks to journalists like Giuliani, Lough and Mayfield — can monitor and evaluate the local boards and councils that make the decisions that directly affect their daily lives.

The story, you see, isn’t that Giuliani, Lough and Mayfield are special or unique. It’s that they’re not, that countless journalists like them every day battle and sacrifice and endure the wrath of angry elected officials to bring us important local news.

What can we do in return? For starters, we can pay attention, get and stay engaged with local issues. We also can get more directly involved, attend a public meeting, maybe even express our opinion.

And, occasionally, we might even tell the journalists fighting the daily fight that we appreciate their efforts.

The First Amendment Center is an educational organization and cannot provide legal advice.

Ken Paulson is president of the First Amendment Center and dean of the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University. He is also the former editor-in-chief of USA Today.

Gene Policinski, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute, also is senior vice president of the First Amendment Center, a center of the institute. He is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.

John Seigenthaler founded the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.

About The First Amendment Center

We support the First Amendment and build understanding of its core freedoms through education, information and entertainment.

The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, and the rights to assemble and to petition the government.

Founded by John Seigenthaler, the First Amendment Center is an operating program of the Freedom Forum and is associated with the Newseum and the Diversity Institute. The center has offices in the John Seigenthaler Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

The center’s website, www.firstamendmentcenter.org, is one of the most authoritative sources of news, information and commentary in the nation on First Amendment issues. It features daily updates on news about First Amendment-related developments, as well as detailed reports about U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment, and commentary, analysis and special reports on free expression, press freedom and religious-liberty issues. Support the work of the First Amendment Center.

1 For All

1 for All is a national nonpartisan program designed to build understanding and support for First Amendment freedoms. 1 for All provides teaching materials to the nation’s schools, supports educational events on America’s campuses and reminds the public that the First Amendment serves everyone, regardless of faith, race, gender or political leanings. It is truly one amendment for all. Visit 1 for All at http://1forall.us/

Help tomorrow’s citizens find their voice: Teach the First Amendment

The most basic liberties guaranteed to Americans – embodied in the 45 words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – assure Americans a government that is responsible to its citizens and responsive to their wishes.

These 45 words are as alive and important today as they were more than 200 years ago. These liberties are neither liberal nor conservative, Democratic nor Republican – they are the basis for our representative democratic form of government.

We know from studies beginning in 1997 by the nonpartisan First Amendment Center, and from studies commissioned by the Knight Foundation and others, that few adult Americans or high school students can name the individual five freedoms that make up the First Amendment.

The lesson plans – drawn from materials prepared by the Newseum and the First Amendment Center – will draw young people into an exploration of how their freedoms began and how they operate in today’s world. Students will discuss just how far individual rights extend, examining rights in the school environment and public places. The lessons may be used in history and government, civics, language arts and journalism, art and debate classes. They may be used in sections or in their entirety. Many of these lesson plans indicate an overall goal, offer suggestions on how to teach the lesson and list additional resources and enrichment activities.

First Amendment Moot Court Competition

This site no longer is being updated … And the competition itself is moving to Washington, D.C., where the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center is co-sponsoring the “Seigenthaler-Sutherland Cup National First Amendment Moot Court Competition,” March 18-19, in partnership with the Columbus School of Law, of the Catholic University of America.

During the two-day competition in February, each team will participate in a minimum of four rounds, arguing a hypothetical based on a current First Amendment controversy before panels of accomplished jurists, legal scholars and attorneys.

FIRST AMENDMENT CENTER ARCHIVES

State of the First Amendment survey reports

The State of the First Amendment surveys, commissioned since 1997 by the First Amendment Center and Newseum, are a regular check on how Americans view their first freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion and petition.

The periodic surveys examine public attitudes toward freedom of speech, press, religion and the rights of assembly and petition; and sample public opinion on contemporary issues involving those freedoms.
See the reports.